Night Sky Views from the Edge of a Distant Galaxy | Manuel's Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter marrsal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galaxy Sky
Click For Summary
Viewing the night sky from a planet at the edge of a distant galaxy would reveal primarily other galaxies, as there are generally no stars outside of galaxies. The visibility of these galaxies would depend on their distance, making them appear faint, similar to how we see the Andromeda Galaxy from Earth. The discussion highlights a common misconception about the universe having a "center" or "edge," emphasizing that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at large scales. Observations like the Hubble Deep Field support the idea that galaxies are distributed throughout the universe without a defined center. Ultimately, understanding the universe's structure requires accepting that it expands uniformly in all directions, without a singular point of origin.
  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
You've used a good analogy but come to the exact wrong conclusion.
Question: what common sense (i.e previous experiences) do you have about universes that you have any common sense about how they "should" work?...

Common sense has no place in trying to discover the unknown. Throw away your preconceptions and examine the facts. Let the universe tell you how it is built, not the other way around.


Nice to know that this is warming up. Why would you like to hear an answer based on "common sense"?. If you are interested on it, then, that means that to you, common sense may actually have a place to discover the unknown. Being a neurophysiologist I do work everyday with "facts" that our current technology has to give us these days. And sometimes, those "facts" are actually not real facts. Those facts is what the machine is telling us what it reads, but not actually what is happening. We tell the machine to give us the information we want, or we think we need. But, not uncommonly, we can not base our desitions on what we get as a "fact". Unfortunately, I have chosen a path totally separated from what physicists or mathematicians do. Therefore I can not examine their "facts". But I am sure, that among them, there are a lot of gaps where those facts are actually not facts. So, I can not really examine the facts as I wish I could, therefore I am just limited on using what I call "common sense".
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
marrsal said:
Nice to know that this is warming up. Why would you like to hear an answer based on "common sense"?. If you are interested on it, then, that means that to you, common sense may actually have a place to discover the unknown. Being a neurophysiologist I do work everyday with "facts" that our current technology has to give us these days. And sometimes, those "facts" are actually not real facts. Those facts is what the machine is telling us what it reads, but not actually what is happening. We tell the machine to give us the information we want, or we think we need. But, not uncommonly, we can not base our desitions on what we get as a "fact". Unfortunately, I have chosen a path totally separated from what physicists or mathematicians do. Therefore I can not examine their "facts". But I am sure, that among them, there are a lot of gaps where those facts are actually not facts. So, I can not really examine the facts as I wish I could, therefore I am just limited on using what I call "common sense".
I agree 100%. In neurophysiology, cold, hard facts are a fair bit harder to come by than in physics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K